I'm no legal expert and I'm not American but I think you misinterpreted the article. It seems fairly clear to me that the magistrate was talking specifically about location for the purpose of issuing a warrant (which could be for the most trivial of matters) whilst your talking about location of someone in the act of committing a crime. I think THAT is what's wrong with 'Amerika' (and Australia where I come from). Everyone is so absorbed in their hate and blame games that they disregard facts or interpret everything on an emotional level instead of a logical one. Reminds me entirely too much of my ex. I do however, see your point regarding the need for any legal system not to hinder police work when it is about catching actual criminals.
A request is initiating a conversation which remains incomplete without a reply. The question is whether simply replying to a request by effectively hanging up (as stated above) is a sufficient or proper reply. Intent is another part of this issue. If the service provider is attempting to protect you by the simple method of asking "Are you sure?" then the customer should be thanking them for protecting them from errors (accidental or otherwise). If the service provider didn't provide this double-checking function it could be argued that they are culpable for any loss of service if there is an error (accidental, technical or malicious). Clearly the lawsuit is frivolous as the annoyance factor is so small as to be negligible to all but those with Personality Disorders. The only thing this lawsuit can possibly achieve is to make it more difficult for service providers to ensure continuity of service for their customers. We all have those buttons that when pushed make us say "Well DUH!" but that is no excuse for acting out a drama or taking legal action for it. This is like suing a fast food outlet for being asked "do you want fries with that?" when you don't and specifically asked for a "burger only".
... the technology is way ahead of both the business models and the legislation. I live in Australia and cannot buy many ebooks from my favourite authors because no one will sell them to me. I understand that publishing rights are localised. I understand it is out of the authors hands. What I don't understand is why it is so much easier for me to break the law than follow it. The same books the publishers and their agents (Amazon et al.) refuse to sell to me because of my location are available for instant download through peer sharing.
I will happily pay full price for an ebook if:
a) It is available in non-proprietary format (i.e. Not mobi or the non-ebook standard pdf)like epub.
b) The ebook is transferable like a hardcover/paperback so that I am not a criminal when I treat an ebook like any other book.
c) Publishers get off their backsides and work out a deal that compensates local publishers when ebooks are downloaded from non-local websites.
Without political bias (if that is even possible) is Conroy just unable to understand the technology, is he misinformed by his "experts" or has he just been given a job to do and his doing his political best to shout down the nay-sayers? I'm trying not to be gullible but I'm not big on conspiracy theories either. I don't happen to think it is possible to keep enough people silent (which is not an issue in this discussion) to believe that nefarious plans are afoot so why are they so adamant that it will go ahead? Political expediency? (Please the wowsers) Bloody mindedness? (I'm the minister so I know what is best)
Putting aside the whole "internet shouldn't be censored" debate, governments do have an obligation to enable laws to be enforced so is there an alternative?
Any creditable links would be appreciated. I hate being so obviously ignorant of the technical issues.
Thanks for the information that has already been provided. It does give me something to Google!
Aside from the fact that it is generally a bad policy to trust a politician, what exactly is the problem everyone has with the filter? If what Conroy has said over and over again is true then:
1. The independent tests show the 'slowing down' of the internet that the filter will cause is micro seconds,
2. The only thing that will be filtered is pages (not whole sites) that have been confirmed to contain content that is RC (Refused classification) in Australia i.e. Kiddie Porn, Snuff Films etc.,
3. The list of pages (the so-called blacklist) will be monitored by an independent body (similar to the existing censorship body) so nothing that isn't illegal already for an Australian to upload onto a site will be included.
I realise there is always the chance of the system being abused but no more than any other government funded institution. The only people I can see this affecting are people who want to access illegal content. Please tell me exactly what the concerns are. I'm finding it a little hard to get excited one way or the other.